An international environment group yesterday criticized the “side agreement” on the toxic provisions of the controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), taking the supplement to the supposedly plain trade pact between the two countries with a grain of salt.
Greenpeace, an independent campaigning organization that aims to expose global environmental problems, said the “diplomatic exchange” between the two countries that will assure that Japan will not dump toxic waste in the Philippines “is not enough” – especially since the country’s existing hazardous waste laws are among the weakest in Southeast Asia.
“Far from allaying fears of toxic waste dumping in the Philippines, the diplomatic exchange, unfortunately, still reinforces the pervading concern that there is an underlying intention to trade in hazardous waste within the JPEPA,” said Beau Baconguis, a campaigner of Greenpeace-Southeast Asia, which has been working on the issue of toxic waste trade in the Philippines for more than a decade.
“The fact that the JPEPA still includes provisions which ‘incentivize’ trading of hazardous wastes suggests that the diplomatic notes now being packaged as some kind of side agreement to the treaty are not as clear-cut as both parties would like to make it appear,” Baconguis said.
On May 24, Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso signed diplomatic notes confirming that Japan will not export toxic waste to the Philippines under the JPEPA.
This came amid protests from various groups – particularly, environmental organizations – who warned against the entry of toxic waste from Japan into the Philippines because of the trade deal.
Baconguis said there lies “the loophole of ambiguity” in the diplomatic notes exchanged between the two countries regarding the JPEPA mechanics on environment concerns.
“The diplomatic notes state that ‘Japan would not be exporting toxic waste to the Philippines as defined and prohibited under the laws of the Philippines and Japan, in accordance with the Basel Convention.’ This is where the loophole and ambiguity lie,” Baconguis said. “The alarming fact is that current hazardous waste laws in the Philippines are among the weakest in Southeast Asia, and allow the entry of toxic waste under the guise of recycling.”
“In essence, what the diplomatic notes say is that Japan will not be sending its hazardous waste to the Philippines unless the latter party agrees to (such),” Baconguis said. “Given what we know about the DENR’s slack permitting system for hazardous waste imports, we are constrained to take this latest pronouncement with a grain of salt.”
Baconguis also said that, while both countries signed the Basel Convention, neither nation has ratified the Basel Ban Amendment.
Baconguis said that, without the Basel Ban Amendment, the Philippines is not fully protected from hazardous waste dumping by industrialized countries.
This means that hazardous waste can still be brought into the country for recycling, which, Baconguis said is “an excuse that Japan can use to ship out toxic waste legally,” since Japan is not yet a party to the Basel Ban Amendment.
“With the current text of the JPEPA, the Philippines is wide open to a shameless list of toxic waste that includes used diapers and radioactive nuclear waste,” she said.
“If indeed both countries are strongly committed to addressing environmental concerns, they would opt for removing such toxic provisions in the treaty rather than merely issuing diplomatic letters external to the original agreement (the weight of which), in the face of the bilateral treaty itself, is highly questionable,” Baconguis said.